Thing is, I'm kind of looking forward to this but I've really lost interest in the series as it has gone on. My favourite so far has actually been the first one. I just feel like the game is getting too big and I can't really be bothered to devote the time necessary to become emporer of the world. I was happy being emperor of Feudal Japan. So yeah, I agree with the other people asking for Shogun 2, it'd be awesome and more fun I reckon.

Mr Sleep wrote:
Thing is, I'm kind of looking forward to this but I've really lost interest in the series as it has gone on. My favourite so far has actually been the first one. I just feel like the game is getting too big and I can't really be bothered to devote the time necessary to become emporer of the world. I was happy being emperor of Feudal Japan. So yeah, I agree with the other people asking for Shogun 2, it'd be awesome and more fun I reckon.

I have to disagree with the idea of remaking Shogun; it was pretty well rounded the first time and I can't see what a remake would add to it. I also have fond memories of conquering Feudal Japan but that's probably more due to nostalgia, and I'm sure if I booted it up again my memories would very likely be destroyed by 2d sprites and same-ish units.

The biggest killer with Medieval 2, for me at least has been the monotony of conquering city after city, castle after castle using the same strategy of:

1) Knock a hole in the wall with catapult/cannon.
2) Send infantry through hole, engaging the enemy.
3) Rout the enemy to the centre, where inevitably 90% of the enemy remains.
4) Watch in annoyance as your brave flanking cavalry gets slaughtered by the morale invincible centre troops.
5) Defeat them by slowly overwhelming them, a process made much slower by the que etiquette system, that makes troops at the back of the units stand around like they're observing a spectator sport.

This is largely the fault of the campaign AI that always seems keen to start a war, but never wants to actually launch an invasion with more than one army. Thus your constantly forced to spend 90-95% of battles trying to take every town and castle because they refuse to either accept peace or properly fight back.

I'm intrigued by Empire, and from what I've heard they're really going for decent campaign AI and diplomacy, so rather than demanding a return to the feudal age, I'll definately be giving this a shot (and who can deny that conquering America with the Ottoman empire wouldn't be cool?).

Not necessarily remaking Shogun, I'd say just expand it to be a larger campaign, bung the newer engine in there and remake the units. That'd do it for me, tweak the principle and improve upon it. Either that or make campaigns of smaller wars, like the Napoleonic or central European affairs. I'm just tired of having to put quite so much work into it, a global affair will just be a bit painful I feel. I finished one campaign on Rome and I haven't played Medieval 2 as Rome was such a slog that I figure it would be even worse. Though I keep meaning to pick it up anyway, just for completists sake I think.

Though, they might surprise me and make it more streamlined and accessible, it's always possible. managing an entire planet just seems like a hell of a lot of work, more than I have time for and it'd take a year for me to get anywhere.

Diplomacy has always been the secondary idea in the Total War series from what I can see, so it might be interesting to see it in effect. Pretty soon Civilisation and Total war are going to be very similar

Well they're definitely streamlining a bit. Things like diplomacy won't require tinkering around with units any more. Whether this is just so they can replace it with other micro-management stuff remains to be seen - the campaign stuff is always the last to get out.

Both Rome and Medieval II have atrocious AI, pathfinding and unit cohesion.

Shogun: Total War is by far the best in the series.

The AI produced a challenge.
The campaign wasn't so long that you ended up WoW-Style grinding to finish everyone off.
The atmosphere was better.
The music was better (apart from Medieval 1). Rome and MTW II's music is just too 'Hollwoodised', Van Dyck made me sad.
Superior MP community.

My crowning opinion is that Shoguns graphics were better too. Yes thats right, they were better. Got bored of zooming into units within 3 seconds, who the fook needs it?

Unforutnately, due to the wonderful 8 Series graphics cards, I can no longer play my best loved RTS anymore.

As for Empire... why make America playable? They're gonna have a country for the last 1/5 of the game, what is the point? The Euro gaming markets bigger now CA, take'em out!!

As for Empire... why make America playable? They're gonna have a country for the last 1/5 of the game, what is the point? The Euro gaming markets bigger now CA, take'em out!!

Empire is Napoleonic era isn't it? As such I don't see an issue having America playable as they were quite active during that period. Depending on how broad the time frame goes you have the war of indepedance and the war of 1812 which were both fairly major events of the times.

I can see what you are saying I just want the chance to take the war of 1812 a little further

I think you would at least want to include the America's on the map from a trade perspective as I think the naval aspect of interfering with other factions shipping was a pretty important strategy of the day.

glaeken wrote:
I can see what you are saying I just want the chance to take the war of 1812 a little further

I think you would at least want to include the America's on the map from a trade perspective as I think the naval aspect of interfering with other factions shipping was a pretty important strategy of the day.

Oh yes, I never said anything about not having the 13 Colonies there at all, my dispute is just with them being playable. If the British Colonials can revolt and become playable, why not the Spanish Colonials in South America?

Interestingly, the British profited far more from the newly formed United States than it ever did when it was under British rule.

To be honest though it's way too early to tell. There won't be any concrete details for aaaaaagggess yet. I don't even think they've confirmed how many playable factions there'll be in total, let alone how rebellions/revolutions will work.

I'll have to show my ignorance as well; what was going on in the way of rebellion down south during this time period? Were there any recognisable countries formed by it?

disussedgenius wrote:
Yeah, I did feel myself being given a small push!

To be honest though it's way too early to tell. There won't be any concrete details for aaaaaagggess yet. I don't even think they've confirmed how many playable factions there'll be in total, let alone how rebellions/revolutions will work.

I'll have to show my ignorance as well; what was going on in the way of rebellion down south during this time period? Were there any recognisable countries formed by it?

Argentina is a notable example. That was mainly the doing of the British, because they launched 2 ill fated expeditions to South America but they both ended in withdrawal. Because the Spanish did nothing to help, this basically spurred on the various independance movements.

Talbot wrote:
Argentina is a notable example. That was mainly the doing of the British, because they launched 2 ill fated expeditions to South America but they both ended in withdrawal. Because the Spanish did nothing to help, this basically spurred on the various independance movements.

With my newfound(land) Wikipedia knowledge, that sounds to me more like a revolution than a rebellion to me. Which is something they've already announced as a game mechanic anyway.

You're all wrong time wise; the game's set roughly between the early seventeen hundreds and early eighteen hundreds so just up until the time of Napoleon. Apparently going the US will allow you to play as a "founding father" (god I hate self worshipping American terminology) and it sounds like they are indeed pandering to the US market. Hopefully they'll redeem the situation by making you start at a later date which will at least be a little bit more realistic.

I'm not sure it matters though, as surely most Eurogamers will be going their country of origin, and giving the US a good kick in.

Talbot wrote:
Argentina is a notable example. That was mainly the doing of the British, because they launched 2 ill fated expeditions to South America but they both ended in withdrawal. Because the Spanish did nothing to help, this basically spurred on the various independance movements.

With my newfound(land) Wikipedia knowledge, that sounds to me more like a revolution than a rebellion to me. Which is something they've already announced as a game mechanic anyway.

I'm confused now, the two go hand in hand, my brain may explode if this conversation gets any more intellectual.

Truk wrote:
Wait. What? I was thinking I'd bring STW into work for a bit of lunch time action, what with my Medieval II game getting a bit stagnant and your description getting me excited, but I've got an 8800 in my work machine.

Alas, the entire 8 Series of Nvidia graphics cards has a serious snobbery problem with older games and Shogun is no exception. Basically, all kinds of weird rubbish takes place, such as no units appearing on the battlefield and when you select units and order them somewhere on the map they will go in completely the opposite direction. There are no fixes as such and these problems are continuous. Consequently Shogun is unplayable.

Articulate-Troll wrote:
I'm not sure it matters though, as surely most Eurogamers will be going their country of origin, and giving the US a good kick in.

They've mentioned emerging factions and whatnot already (like the 13 Colonies), but also stuff like the French Revolution. They seem to be two different problems that will crop up, I guess to do with different government types.

It also neutered the vangarian guard and those elite egyptian axemen (their only heavy infantry) making noth sides much less prepared for the Mongol invasion. What with Mongol hordes best beaten with either more archers than they have or troops of serious quality.